Y10W44PA - Should Social Media Platforms Be Legally Liable for Harmful Content?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission about social media platform liability. Now you'll read another student's submission and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate formal persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Submission

A strong persuasive submission takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasoning and evidence, addresses the strongest counterargument, and closes with a practically specific recommendation. Assessors judge whether the argument truly convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position, but naming the mechanism behind the problem. Evidence that genuinely supports the claim. The precise way the strongest objection fails to undermine the case.

  • Specific reasoning: shows mechanism, evidence and objection handling instead of assertion alone.

Structure & Cohesion

Deliberate movement from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation. Clear transitions between sections. A recommendation that is specific, not vague.

  • Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.

Audience & Purpose

Framing calibrated for a specific professional audience. Framing that matches what that audience is equipped to evaluate. A recommendation that is actionable for them.

  • Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.

Language Choices

Precise analytical language throughout. Key claims expressed exactly, and the recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms. No vague or informal language that weakens formal credibility.

  • Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, as expected in formal submissions. Errors reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity show command of formal written expression.

  • Formal control: uses accurate mechanics and controlled sentence complexity to sustain credibility.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a submission to the parliamentary inquiry arguing for or against holding social media platforms legally liable for harmful content published on them.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. The quality of ideas decides whether the structural argument is analytically rigorous, with specific mechanisms identified. The structure decides whether the submission moves clearly from positive case to counterargument to recommendation. The precision of language decides how clearly the case is expressed.

Ideas & Content

Strong writing this week shows Ideas & Content applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for reasoning that serves this task: the structural asymmetry named precisely, not a general claim about platform harm.

What markers scan for

  • Ideas & Content applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Ideas & Content is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Ideas & Content is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Ideas & Content is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Structure & Cohesion

Strong writing this week shows Structure & Cohesion applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for shaping that serves this task: a clear move from positive case to counterargument to recommendation, with explicit transitions.

What markers scan for

  • Structure & Cohesion applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Structure & Cohesion is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Structure & Cohesion is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Structure & Cohesion is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for precision that serves this task: exact phrasing at key argumentative moments, so the case reads clearly.

What markers scan for

  • Language Choices applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language Choices is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Language Choices is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Language Choices is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Now read · Student sample

Should Social Media Platforms Be Legally Liable for Harmful Content?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Dandenong, Victoria, Australia.

This submission argues in favour of holding social media platforms legally liable for harmful content published on them, subject to a defined safe harbour for platforms that can demonstrate reasonable compliance with their content moderation obligations. The case for legal liability rests on a structural asymmetry that the current framework fails to address. Social media platforms profit from the engagement that harmful content generates — including harassment, misinformation and content promoting self-harm — without bearing the costs of the harm that content produces. The beneficiaries of harmful content are the platforms; the costs are borne by the individuals harmed, the communities affected and the public institutions required to respond. Liability shifts the cost back to the party that profits from the structure, creating an incentive for platforms to invest in content moderation proportionate to their actual capacity. The relevant question is not whether platforms can moderate effectively — they have demonstrated they can when motivated — but whether the current framework provides sufficient motivation. The strongest objection to platform liability is that it would create a chilling effect on lawful speech: platforms, fearful of liability, would over-moderate and remove legitimate content. This is a serious objection that requires direct engagement. The safe harbour provision in this submission addresses the chilling effect directly: platforms that can demonstrate reasonable compliance with defined content moderation standards would retain immunity, so the only content subject to removal would be content that demonstrably falls below defined thresholds. The model is not novel. The European Union’s Digital Services Act establishes a similar framework in which liability and safe harbour operate together, and the evidence from its early implementation does not indicate systematic over-moderation of lawful content. The inquiry panel is invited to recommend a liability framework accompanied by a statutory safe harbour, with defined content moderation standards, mandatory transparency reporting and an independent appeals process for disputed content removal decisions.